Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Nicholas Thompson]

Yeah.  I know it's dark in there, but feel around.  You will find them.  You
will know you have a hold of one, when you can hear the pineal gland
sloshing back and forth when you wiggle the handle.  Or was it the
pituitary.  Darn.  

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 10:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

 

Levers?   There are levers?   I was supposed to be pushing levers?   

Dang, that explains it.

C.

On 11/12/11 9:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: 

Stephen, 

  

I thought Lakoff's Moral politics was bloody awful - SHAMEFUL even, given
his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what happens when
an Author's publisher gets him to write more books than he has in him.  

  

I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of "embodied cognition".  I
mean, where the hell else is it.  It's the same kind of nervousness that
overcomes me when people talk about "cognitive psychology."  (What the hell
other kind of psychology IS there?)  Such expressions seem to be an attempt
to slip dualism in by the back door.  Cognition is just adaptive action of a
body.  I think most believers of embodied cognition are hoping to find the
little door in the skull that opens into the room where the teensy little
guy sits looking out through the windows of the eyes and pulling on the
little levers that send the fluids up and down the nerve channels.  

  

Psychology has some wonderful theories.  For instance, Skinner has a
wonderful theory of learning.  Unfortunately, it applies primarily to
pigeons pressing levers.  If only we could cram all humanity into Skinner
boxes, the theory would work fine.  Physics has the same problem, really.
Billiard balls would glide along perfectly if it weren't for friction, but
there is friction everywhere where billiard balls are.  If only we had
frictionless billiard balls.  But the problem doesn't seem to bother
physcists so much The artificial models of physics are more useful than
those of psychology because, I guess, physicists have a lot better sense of
what happens when the idealized circumstances of the model are violated.
Poor psychologists:  you take people out of those skinner boxes and all hell
breaks loose.  

  

At the risk of putting you all through distasteful spectacle of having Doug
and Peter yell at me again, let me remind you of our discussion of tornados,
where Peter seemed to be saying that one really shouldn't talk about
vortices until one had had sixty years of experience engineering wings and
propellers.  Sounds like whatever you learn about propellers in physics one
won't get you off a runway.  It won't even get water out of a washbasin.  

  

I think the problem is not that Psychologists don't  have good theories;  I
think it's more that psychologists don't have good theories about the kind
of questions that people want answers to.  You folks want answers about
tornadoes and washbasins, and all we have to offer is theories about
behavior in skinner boxes.  

  

Nick 

  

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen Thompson
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One 

  

Eric:  

I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied
Cognition: 

1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro 
2. Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez 
3. Philosophy In The Flesh by Lakoff and Mark Johnson 

I came to these via Dr Lakoff's Moral Politics, then perusing his Metaphors
We Live By.  
Will the 3 books above provide a basic understanding of Embodied Cognition,
even though 
they appear to be oriented to Philosophy as opposed to psychology? 

I read Dr Dennett's Consciousness Explained back in 1997 and came to accept
the 
naturalistic world view - what you see is what there is; no mystical nor
supernatural 
stuff.  

Of the two links you provided, I found your post to be more clear on the
conflict in psychology 
than the PsychScientists' post. 

Thanks,
Steph T 


On 11/12/2011 8:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: 

Doug, don't fret. 

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we get a
good theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent source of ideas
for improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has been getting attention
from other excellent professionals, including a Scientific American author
who is actively discussing Andrew's previous post: "Embodied cognition is
not what you think
 ". (With more discussion here
 .)

Roger, 
You are correct that it might seem like psych

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Stephen Thompson]

Cousin! (if I may be so bold):

After 27 yrs in boring finance, I find these ideas, well, stimulating.
I thought Moral Politics a tough read - but only because it was densely 
packed with
ideas.  It seems to me the Strict Father model and the Nurturant Parent 
Model explains
a lot of what passes for policy positions on the conservative and 
progressive sides,

respectively.

Granted I don't have much background in the field with which to compare, 
but it doesn't
have the distaste of Asimov's phrase of "fake knowledge" (the 
superstitious stuff).  So
it seems to me a useful set of models with which to view the political 
arena.


An associate of mine in town in the software engineering community also 
thinks Moral
Politics was not a good book.  But so far I haven't heard an organized 
refutation.  Is there

another model or framework I should examine for an alternative view?

I am even more novice to the concept of embodied cognition.  However, 
just on the surface
it seems to be an extension of Dennet's Consciousness and Darwin's 
Dangerous Ideas
books.  There is no mind-body duality, therefore the mind-body are 
connected and it may follow
that the body affects the brain and thus the workings of the brain 
called mind.


I don't have the training or even the amateur readings to be able to 
examine that train of thought
as a psychologist would.  So I can only look over boundary conditions 
via imagination and
think about what would happen to a "mind" if it was in different 
conditions than the human body.


So at this point I just list a few off-the-wall ideas I could play with:
 1.  Take a mature mind (person say 35 - 55 yrs old) and place it in
   another human body.   What would the inputs be like via the
   different nerves and 5 senses?  Would the sensations be
basically the same with slight or significant differences?

 2.  Same as #1 but place the mind into an animal body.  Ask the
  same questions.  Something more substantive than just the
  fiction of A Once And Future King describing the scrapes little
  Wart (King Arthur) gets into as a fish, bird, etc.  I am not 
sure

  I am up to this task because I can only imagine my own physical
  human body sensations in a new setting with a different 
structured

  body.

  Different physical mechanism (more of them) for smell as a dog
  or cat - so would we be able to create words to describe 
different

  odors like Hobbes does in Calvin & Hobbs?

 3.  For really off-the-wall, same as #1 but place the mind in the
  "body" of an alien species from classical science fiction.  See
   Barlow's Guide to Extraterrestrials.

I derive this possible line of thinking from an earlier question 
concerning the development

of a supernatural supreme being who is in the Old Testament a vengeful God,
 and in the New Testament, a loving parent.  Is human 
conceptualizations of a
a supreme being derive from our biology? As a species we have nurturant 
parents,
so is it just a form of transference to derive a supreme being as a ever 
present "parent"?
If so, what would sea turtles derive as "god" given they are hatched and 
on-their-own

from the moment they crawl out of the sand and dash for the sea?

Then back to Barlow's Guide and what would any of those alien species 
derive as

supreme beings given their biology?

I have wondered off the topic of embodied cognition.  But I think of it 
as wondering around
the edges to see what the landscape may contain.  I also think Lakoff's 
Metaphors can be
helpful in understanding how our human biology affects our choice of 
good and bad and the
way those notions enter our language via metaphor.  (up is good, down is 
bad, etc.)


Would up/down or light/dark be the same metaphors of good/bad for the 
Uchjin (floating paint

smears) from Chalker's Well World Series?

As an analogy, I don't have the training or the sophisticated tools of a 
mechanical engineer,
but I do have access to some LEGO blocks.  So I am playing with these 
ideas in a similar manner.
I don't expect to build a real-world Golden Gate Bridge, but if I make a 
colorful model with the

LEGO blocks I may be able to discern some basic principles.

I don't have much free time to follow these pathways, though more now 
that the kids are grown

and out on their own.  I spend most of my time reading.

Thanks,
Steph T


On 11/12/2011 10:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


Stephen,

I thought Lakoff's Moral politics was bloody awful -- SHAMEFUL even, 
given his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what 
happens when an Author's publisher gets him to write more books than 
he has in him.


I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of "embodied 
cognition".  I mean, where the hell else is it.  It's the same kind of 
nervousness that overcomes me when people talk about "cognitive 
psychology."  (What the hell other kind of 

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Nick,
There are two related problems worth distinguishing. 

1) The first problem is, as you put it, "psychologists don’t have good
theories about the kind of questions that people want answers to." This is
indeed a problem, and is a valid criticism of some aspects of psychology / the
progress psychology has made as a science. 

2) The second problem is, "Psychologists have good theories, which render the
kinds of questions that people ask incoherent." This is not at all a problem.
It might even be a sign of good and healthy progress.

So far as I know, the progress of all other recognized sciences has routinely
rendered lay questions about the field incoherent. For example, "Why is it that
all planets rotate in perfect circles?", "How do fire, air, and earth combine
to form wood?", "Why does life spontaneous generate an animal corpse, but not
if the corpse is covered in lye?", etc. Thus, we would expect that a "good
theory" of psychology would allow a psychologist to tell people that at least
some of their questions are incoherent, or at least misguided, and therefore
unanswerable. 

Also... Having theories about normally living humans derived from rats in a
Skinner box is no worse, at least in principle, than having theories about
natually occuring chemicals derived from experiments with purified chemicals in
a sterile lab. I have never seen colleagues in other sciences criticized for
controlling for extraneous variables. Is it really that surprising or
problematic that behavior is more predictable when we can control the
environment, but less predictable when we cannot control the environment and do
not know about an organism's past history? 

(Apparently cranky,)
Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 11:32 PM, "Nicholas  Thompson"
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>Stephen, 


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>I thought Lakoff’s Moral politics was bloody awful – SHAMEFUL even, given
his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what happens when an
Author’s publisher gets him to write more books than he has in him.  


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of “embodied cognition”. 
I mean, where the hell else is it.  It’s the same kind of nervousness that
overcomes me when people talk about “cognitive psychology.”  (What the hell
other kind of psychology IS there?)  Such expressions seem to be an attempt to
slip dualism in by the back door.  Cognition is just adaptive action of a body.
 I think most believers of embodied cognition are hoping to find the little
door in the skull that opens into the room where the teensy little guy sits
looking out through the windows of the eyes and pulling on the little levers
that send the fluids up and down the nerve channels.  


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>Psychology has some wonderful theories.  For instance, Skinner has a wonderful
theory of learning.  Unfortunately, it applies primarily to pigeons pressing
levers.  If only we could cram all humanity into Skinner boxes, the theory
would work fine.  Physics has the same problem, really.  Billiard balls would
glide along perfectly if it weren’t for friction, but there is friction
everywhere where billiard balls are.  If only we had frictionless billiard
balls.  But the problem doesn’t seem to bother physcists so much The
artificial models of physics are more useful than those of psychology because,
I guess, physicists have a lot better sense of what happens when the idealized
circumstances of the model are violated.  Poor psychologists:  you take people
out of those skinner boxes and all hell breaks loose.  


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>At the risk of putting you all through distasteful spectacle of having Doug
and Peter yell at me again, let me remind you of our discussion of tornados,
where Peter seemed to be saying that one really shouldn’t talk about vortices
until one had had sixty years of experience engineering wings and propellers. 
Sounds like whatever you learn about propellers in physics one won’t get you
off a runway.  It won’t even get water out of a washbasin.  


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>I think the problem is not that Psychologists don’t  have good theories;  I
think it’s more that psychologists don’t have good theories about the kind
of questions that people want answers to.  You folks want answers about
tornadoes and washbasins, and all we have to offer is theories about  behavior
in skinner boxes.  


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>Nick 


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>>>
>
>From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen Thompson
>Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:54 PM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One


>
>


>
>


>
>
>


>
> 


>
>


>
>
>Eric:  
>
>I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied Cognition: 
>
>1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Carl Tollander]

Levers?   There are levers?   I was supposed to be pushing levers?

Dang, that explains it.

C.

On 11/12/11 9:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


Stephen,

I thought Lakoff's Moral politics was bloody awful -- SHAMEFUL even, 
given his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what 
happens when an Author's publisher gets him to write more books than 
he has in him.


I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of "embodied 
cognition".  I mean, where the hell else is it.  It's the same kind of 
nervousness that overcomes me when people talk about "cognitive 
psychology."  (What the hell other kind of psychology IS there?)  Such 
expressions seem to be an attempt to slip dualism in by the back 
door.  Cognition is just adaptive action of a body.  I think most 
believers of embodied cognition are hoping to find the little door in 
the skull that opens into the room where the teensy little guy sits 
looking out through the windows of the eyes and pulling on the little 
levers that send the fluids up and down the nerve channels.


Psychology has some wonderful theories.  For instance, Skinner has a 
wonderful theory of learning.  Unfortunately, it applies primarily to 
pigeons pressing levers.  If only we could cram all humanity into 
Skinner boxes, the theory would work fine.  Physics has the same 
problem, really.  Billiard balls would glide along perfectly if it 
weren't for friction, but there is friction everywhere where billiard 
balls are.  If only we had frictionless billiard balls.  But the 
problem doesn't seem to bother physcists so much The artificial models 
of physics are more useful than those of psychology because, I guess, 
physicists have a lot better sense of what happens when the idealized 
circumstances of the model are violated.  Poor psychologists:  you 
take people out of those skinner boxes and all hell breaks loose.


At the risk of putting you all through distasteful spectacle of having 
Doug and Peter yell at me again, let me remind you of our discussion 
of tornados, where Peter seemed to be saying that one really shouldn't 
talk about vortices until one had had sixty years of experience 
engineering wings and propellers.  Sounds like whatever you learn 
about propellers in physics one won't get you off a runway.  It won't 
even get water out of a washbasin.


I think the problem is not that Psychologists don't  have good 
theories;  I think it's more that psychologists don't have good 
theories about the kind of questions that people want answers to.  You 
folks want answers about tornadoes and washbasins, and all we have to 
offer is theories about  behavior in skinner boxes.


Nick

*From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 
*On Behalf Of *Stephen Thompson

*Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:54 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

Eric:

I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied 
Cognition:


1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro
2. Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez
3. Philosophy In The Flesh by Lakoff and Mark Johnson

I came to these via Dr Lakoff's Moral Politics, then perusing his 
Metaphors We Live By.
Will the 3 books above provide a basic understanding of Embodied 
Cognition, even though

they appear to be oriented to Philosophy as opposed to psychology?

I read Dr Dennett's Consciousness Explained back in 1997 and came to 
accept the
naturalistic world view - what you see is what there is; no mystical 
nor supernatural

stuff.

Of the two links you provided, I found your post to be more clear on 
the conflict in psychology

than the PsychScientists' post.

Thanks,
Steph T


On 11/12/2011 8:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Doug, don't fret.

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we 
get a good theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent 
source of ideas for improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has 
been getting attention from other excellent professionals, including a 
Scientific American author who is actively discussing Andrew's 
previous post: "Embodied cognition is not what you think 
". 
(With more discussion here 
.)


Roger,
You are correct that it might seem like psychology should have other 
things to worry about, but frankly the problems you mention (rampant 
misuse of statistics and the rare forged data scandals) would be a lot 
easier to deal with if we had a more unified theoretical base.


Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 07:12 PM, *Douglas Roberts  
* wrote:


Oh, God.  Here we go.
 
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm    wrote:

>  Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a 

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Nicholas Thompson]

Stephen, 

 

I thought Lakoff's Moral politics was bloody awful - SHAMEFUL even, given
his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what happens when
an Author's publisher gets him to write more books than he has in him.  

 

I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of "embodied cognition".  I
mean, where the hell else is it.  It's the same kind of nervousness that
overcomes me when people talk about "cognitive psychology."  (What the hell
other kind of psychology IS there?)  Such expressions seem to be an attempt
to slip dualism in by the back door.  Cognition is just adaptive action of a
body.  I think most believers of embodied cognition are hoping to find the
little door in the skull that opens into the room where the teensy little
guy sits looking out through the windows of the eyes and pulling on the
little levers that send the fluids up and down the nerve channels.  

 

Psychology has some wonderful theories.  For instance, Skinner has a
wonderful theory of learning.  Unfortunately, it applies primarily to
pigeons pressing levers.  If only we could cram all humanity into Skinner
boxes, the theory would work fine.  Physics has the same problem, really.
Billiard balls would glide along perfectly if it weren't for friction, but
there is friction everywhere where billiard balls are.  If only we had
frictionless billiard balls.  But the problem doesn't seem to bother
physcists so much The artificial models of physics are more useful than
those of psychology because, I guess, physicists have a lot better sense of
what happens when the idealized circumstances of the model are violated.
Poor psychologists:  you take people out of those skinner boxes and all hell
breaks loose.  

 

At the risk of putting you all through distasteful spectacle of having Doug
and Peter yell at me again, let me remind you of our discussion of tornados,
where Peter seemed to be saying that one really shouldn't talk about
vortices until one had had sixty years of experience engineering wings and
propellers.  Sounds like whatever you learn about propellers in physics one
won't get you off a runway.  It won't even get water out of a washbasin.  

 

I think the problem is not that Psychologists don't  have good theories;  I
think it's more that psychologists don't have good theories about the kind
of questions that people want answers to.  You folks want answers about
tornadoes and washbasins, and all we have to offer is theories about
behavior in skinner boxes.  

 

Nick 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen Thompson
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

 

Eric:  

I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied
Cognition: 

1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro 
2. Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez 
3. Philosophy In The Flesh by Lakoff and Mark Johnson 

I came to these via Dr Lakoff's Moral Politics, then perusing his Metaphors
We Live By.  
Will the 3 books above provide a basic understanding of Embodied Cognition,
even though 
they appear to be oriented to Philosophy as opposed to psychology? 

I read Dr Dennett's Consciousness Explained back in 1997 and came to accept
the 
naturalistic world view - what you see is what there is; no mystical nor
supernatural 
stuff.  

Of the two links you provided, I found your post to be more clear on the
conflict in psychology 
than the PsychScientists' post. 

Thanks,
Steph T 


On 11/12/2011 8:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: 

Doug, don't fret. 

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we get a
good theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent source of ideas
for improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has been getting attention
from other excellent professionals, including a Scientific American author
who is actively discussing Andrew's previous post: "Embodied cognition is
not what you think
 ". (With more discussion here
 .)

Roger, 
You are correct that it might seem like psychology should have other things
to worry about, but frankly the problems you mention (rampant misuse of
statistics and the rare forged data scandals) would be a lot easier to deal
with if we had a more unified theoretical base. 

Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 07:12 PM, Douglas Roberts
  wrote:



Oh, God.  Here we go.
 
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  
 wrote:
> Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?
> 
> 
http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psycho
logy-got.html?m=1
> -J.
> 
> Sent from Android
> ==

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Stephen Thompson]

Eric:

I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied 
Cognition:


1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro
2. Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez
3. Philosophy In The Flesh by Lakoff and Mark Johnson

I came to these via Dr Lakoff's Moral Politics, then perusing his 
Metaphors We Live By.
Will the 3 books above provide a basic understanding of Embodied 
Cognition, even though

they appear to be oriented to Philosophy as opposed to psychology?

I read Dr Dennett's Consciousness Explained back in 1997 and came to 
accept the
naturalistic world view - what you see is what there is; no mystical nor 
supernatural

stuff.

Of the two links you provided, I found your post to be more clear on the 
conflict in psychology

than the PsychScientists' post.

Thanks,
Steph T


On 11/12/2011 8:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Doug, don't fret.

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we 
get a good theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent 
source of ideas for improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has 
been getting attention from other excellent professionals, including a 
Scientific American author who is actively discussing Andrew's 
previous post: "Embodied cognition is not what you think 
". 
(With more discussion here 
.)


Roger,
You are correct that it might seem like psychology should have other 
things to worry about, but frankly the problems you mention (rampant 
misuse of statistics and the rare forged data scandals) would be a lot 
easier to deal with if we had a more unified theoretical base.


Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 07:12 PM, *Douglas Roberts 
* wrote:


Oh, God.  Here we go.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>  Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?
>
>

http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html?m=1
>  -J.
>
>  Sent from Android
>  
>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>  lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Doug, don't fret. 

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we get a good
theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent source of ideas for
improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has been getting attention from
other excellent professionals, including a Scientific American author who is
actively discussing Andrew's previous post:
"".
 (With more discussion 
.)

Roger, 
You are correct that it might seem like psychology should have other things to 
worry about, but frankly the problems you mention (rampant misuse of statistics 
and the rare forged data scandals) would be a lot easier to deal with if we had 
a more unified theoretical base. 

Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 07:12 PM, Douglas Roberts  wrote:
>
Oh, God.  Here we go.
>
>On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>> Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?
>>
>>
>http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html?m=1
>> -J.
>>
>> Sent from Android
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Roger Critchlow]

Between this study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026828
reporting that
statistical errors in psych papers correlate with the unwillingness of
authors to share their original data, and the career of social psychologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel lately unraveled after years
of fabricating data for his own papers and his grad students'
dissertations, I'd think that theory would be last issue on psychology's
mind.

-- rec --

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?
>
>
> http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html?m=1
>
> -J.
>
> Sent from Android
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Douglas Roberts]

Oh, God.  Here we go.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?
>
> http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html?m=1
> -J.
>
> Sent from Android
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

[Jochen Fromm]

Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory? 

http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html?m=1

-J.

Sent from Android
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] 99%, occupyWallStreet, Santa Fe, etc.

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Being somewhat close to the problem, I'm not sure what the connection is
between this criticism and what is happening at Penn State.


Specifically, I'm not sure how it is "scapegoating" if the Director of
Athletics, the Vice President of Business and Finance, the legendary football
coach, and the 20 year running college President have all gotten the axe. Coach
Paterno might well qualify as a scapegoat, as the media got him fired, and it
is not clear that his own (in)action warranted the move. (I'm not saying
Paterno should not have been fired, I'm just saying that it is unclear given
the evidence available to the public.) The other three people, however, seem to
be exactly the people to blame, and are the highest heads one could chop. They
are hardly people chosen at random to shoulder the blame. This isn't Scooter
Libby taking the blame for the Dick Cheney, this is the President, a Vice
President, and two "cabinet level" people taking the blunt of the blame
directly.


Of course, there were group dynamics involved in the original cover up. And
there have been crazy reactions, such as one of the people who reported a
witnessed crime receiving death threats. But I'm not really sure about how your
criticism relates to the main current events. 



On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 07:44 PM, "Vladimyr Burachynsky"
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>How to make people feel they are part of a Group…


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>If they collectively decide to cover up a crime through willful blindness then
they establish some certainty that they belong.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>Groups seem to demand that individuals Believe the unBelievable. It seems that
some human beings have the capacity to smooth out ethical contradictions by
simply choosing to live in another reality. When many people choose to live in
the same delusion they are effectively a Group.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>There seems to be a belief that Groups can exonerate the individual through
Magic and Amnesia. The recent news of sexual crimes in Penn State reinforce
this perspective.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>The Group seems able to deny it’s crimes while selecting a scapegoat to
carry their burdens. Groups seem much stronger when Criminality is involved
even though each individual denies it’s existence. The Group might be nothing
more than a psychological construct to absorb Guilt and at a high price.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>Groups seem to choose Noble leaders to establish a pretense of heroicism and
much later dispose of the leader along with the memory of their individual
crimes 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>This seems characteristic of much current political drama. Reluctant
scapegoats fight tooth and nail to avoid the demand to be sacrificed for the
good people.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>The Group has a fantastic attribute of Goodness which disguises the Dark side
of perversity.  People mostly use this contradiction to satisfy their own
problems.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>I would have thought that as our population increases that corruption would
prevail, however there do seem to be indications that many are bucking the
trend.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>Groups seem very well devised to exclude individuals that have questionable
ethics. These Groups have inadvertantly created their own nemesis.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>The history of confronting corruption is dismal overall. Managers seem
particularly prone to Group Think and demonstrate that they are absolutely
convinced that they can ignore all legal responsibility for individual acts.
Society still is unprepared to prosecute Group Think in all its devilish
rationalizations.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>The lack of meaningful leadership globally is perhaps due to so many living I
a delusional state of mind where someone else will always end up being
scapegoated.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>At least Pontius Pilot tried to wash his own hands.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
><#>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>Canada 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> (204) 2548321 Land


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>(204) 8016064  Cell


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>
>
>From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of ERIC P. CHARLES
>Sent: October-27-11 9:32 PM
>To: Gillian Densmore
>Cc: Anne Rowland; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 99%, occupyWallStreet, Santa Fe, etc.


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
>


>
>
> 


>
>
>


>>>
>
>
>Gillian,
>H trying to put my evolutionary psychology hat on, and feeling lik

Re: [FRIAM] 99%, occupyWallStreet, Santa Fe, etc.

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Hi Steve,

 

I am not sure about Google but many Internet Groups exhibit a bit of the
conventional school yard bully tactics.

In general this Friam Group seems relatively free from that sort of thing.
At least no one is accusing me of thinking I am some "Kind of Scientist"

 

I suspect that groups without the dirty deceit component are less stable.
Members rotate in and out freely. However in a situation like Penn State
there must have been a culture of entitlement. Entry into the Group was very
selective. That made the difference.

 

Such Groups could be called perverted. The local Gardening Club seems less
vulnerable. The more nasty the hazing ritual and the membership fees the
more likely it will dally with metaphysical rationalizations. ( Belief in
the Un Believable.)

 

Many such Groups apparently have a small cadre of cynics at the core
cleverly disguised in heroic roles. Now these cynics do not really believe
in the Group it is enough to have fools eager to believe for them. It seems
the worst outcome arises when the fools learn or suspect they have been
deceived. Bernie Madoff story.

 

Denial coupled by a willingness to believe in the UnBelievable seems to
create a stable structure.  Eventually the game gets so common that everyone
wants to run his own Group of Believers. This vector seems to explain the
Blogging phenomenon in a small part.  Typically one can test for a perverted
Group Structure by simply asking the" uncomfortable question" and wait for a
response. Such Groups seem very much used to slinging the dirt, what strikes
me as odd is that ,however divergent such Groups, they use the same
principles to attack and defend. False accusation , convenient accusation,
religious heresy, or pederasty are the favorite tools of character
assassination.

 

Of all the range of evil and deviant acts a human being can perpetrate why
only a handful are ever employed is curious and these seem to originate in
the pre Christian period. I guess no one will get a public hearing for
folding a document or collecting butterflies. But if someone declares the
butterfly to be endangered then maybe some small action would be taken. But
a sexual inpropriety Trumps all accusations. In the case of Penn State
perhaps the collaborators understood how dangerous the evidence was and kept
the secret to themselves, deluding themselves that there was no problem
anymore. Delusion and Group Perversion seem inextricable. I might add
entitlement, that feeling may have arisen simply because the cost of entry
in the Group was so restricted/inflated.

 

The openness of the internet may lead to the exposure of Group Perversion in
the long run and curtail this phenomenon, but in the short term the special
interest groups seem to be attempting to undermine the Net with much
nonsense. Most people are very Gullible ,Some few less so. Education should
have changed proportions but seems accidentally to have enhanced general
Gullibility. For a time I simply assumed most people were pathologically
stupid, I regret this assumption now. The truth seems more astonishing, even
very brilliant people are Gullible in certain aspects. A good scientist
never trusts his own judgment too easily except for microscopes and hotdogs.
His fellows should provide criticism when he goes astray. 

Heroes never consider other options and therefore always end up as a
scapegoat for their former supporters/collaborators.

At Penn State there will be in time many more small voices of criticism
there may already have been many plastered over. But eventually we all must
understand that white lies to protect a colleague are insidious. You are
just as guilty of a crime as he. Collegiality is not an excuse to break the
law, nor is fear.

 

The real mystery is why it is so easy for us to become collaborators. We
actually operate like Mafia Gangs with a lot of Pomp and Ceremony. 

I was asked recently by friends fro North Africa, "What should be done with
Collaborators" I have no answer, I am against capital punishment, but
understand that collaborators will ultimately pervert the next reincarnation
of government. Massive Jail sentences have been tried, the Chinese cultural
revolution was a failure, Stalin and Lenin tried as well and seemed for a
time to succeed. The problem is that there are so many collaborators even in
one's own family. Every day more are born.

 

Eric P Charles suggested we are selected to live in groups.. But perhaps we
are selected to be Gullible as well. There is a world of difference between
the stupid and the ruthless cunning but gullible. He insinuated that a
Strong mind would refuse to believe nonsense. I agree but as my father
warned me , you could just as easily be rewarded with a bullet between the
eyes. 

 

If one examines political party structures in the West these entities should
always be distinguished from Garden Clubs by a simple test of Group
Perversion.

It seems 99% of North Americans are outside of the Proper Group and 

[FRIAM] UI design resources

[Tom Johnson]

All

If interested in UI design, drill down into this -->
http://interaction-design.org/

-- Tom johnson (in Zanzibar)


 Understanding Social Computing:An Authoritative Review by Tom Erickson of
IBM’s Watson Research
Lab
 November 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM

At Interaction-Design.org , we make educational
materials by
top designers and top professors and give it away for free. We have
prepared a preview for UX Magazine readers of our newest material: an
authoritative overview of *social computing*, which includes many relevant
perspectives for the UX community.

The overview of social computing includes nine HD video interviews with the
author, Tom Erickson , who is a veteran
researcher in IBM’s Watson Research Lab.
Tom has worked on many of IBM’s social computing systems all the way back
from the late 90s. The material includes a lengthy commentary by Elizabeth
Churchill who is manager of the...read
more
By Mads Soegaard 

-- 
==
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --   Santa Fe, NM
USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com  t...@jtjohnson.com
==

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Mary Yugo lays out how a typical new energy device scam works: Rich Murray 2011.11.11

[Rich Murray]

Thanks for vivid details about how an intricate stock market scam worked in
the 1920's.

I never would have imagined such organization and attention to details.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Sarbajit Roy  wrote:

> ">You think people are too sophisticated to give money to scammers?  You
> must read different news articles than I do."
>
> http://www.blongerbros.com/gang/rag.asp
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Rich Murray  wrote:
>
>> Mary Yugo lays out how a typical new energy device scam works: Rich
>> Murray 2011.11.11
>>
>>  from
>> Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com reply-to vorte...@eskimo.com
>>  to vorte...@eskimo.com
>>  date Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM subject Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site
>> up
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <
>> aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Nice to see the web site is registered to Rossi but what the heck does
>>> the validity of the E-Cat have to do with the software that was used to
>>> create the web site or who the web site was created by or who it is
>>> administered by?
>>>
>>
>> I agree, very little.  But it's unlikely that a prosperous and
>> sophisticated company would do it that way, that's all.
>>
>>
>>> I suggest the sales and payment conditions has just totally taken the
>>> wind out of the sails of all the scam / fraud group.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, Gee!  Not at all.  A common form of scam is to take money somewhere
>> near the start from secret investors who sign an NDA so they can't talk or
>> write on public forums.  The NDA is usually extremely broad in scope and if
>> someone hints at breaking it, all sorts of threats of law suits begin.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the perpetrators buy an ad or two or do a web page or other
>> introduction, have news releases and press conferences, and announce a new
>> company that promises all sorts of wonders.  They usually have some sort of
>> photo op and maybe a carefully contrived demonstration that believers can
>> sop up but which really proves nothing.   The next step is to announce that
>> a lot of the proceeds will go to charity.  Blogs sprout up praising the
>> device and fantasizing what will happen in the future when it is widely
>> adopted.  Skeptics are scorned and insulted and eventually banned from
>> enthusiast sites.Then, the scammer says they won't be taking investment
>> money now.  Maybe in the future they'll go public but they're doing this
>> "on their own".  The secret investors aren't mentioned and they can't say a
>> peep due to their NDA.  They also don't want to jeopardize success and
>> future profits.  Some are simply too embarrassed to speak.
>>
>> Customers are announced but somehow they're never produced.  Test are
>> declined if they're too definitive.  Hey, they'd reveal too many trade
>> secrets.  Patents?  "Sometimes it's no, sometimes it's yes, it just
>> couldn't matter less" (from Gigi, 1958, IMDB).
>>
>> Along the way, more secret investors may be picked up.  The investment
>> amount can get really large -- Steorn so far has been $21 million Euros.
>> The money is spent or squirreled away.  It can go on for years with no
>> product, no proper testing and no customers who can verify that the product
>> is real.
>>
>> That's the quick version.  Is that what Rossi is?  In my mind, he fits
>> the script but he's more daring about demos than most  -- but who knows?
>> The more time goes by between the customer announcement and some credible
>> souls vouching for a bona fide sale and of course a proper test -- the
>> longer it takes, the more likely it's a scam.  Nine months and counting now.
>>
>> You think people are too sophisticated to give money to scammers?  You
>> must read different news articles than I do.
>>
>>
>> Rich Murray
>> rmfor...@gmail.com
>> 505-819-7388
>> rich.murray11  Skype audio, video
>>
>>
>>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Mary Yugo lays out how a typical new energy device scam works: Rich Murray 2011.11.11

[Sarbajit Roy]

">You think people are too sophisticated to give money to scammers?  You
>must read different news articles than I do."

http://www.blongerbros.com/gang/rag.asp


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> Mary Yugo lays out how a typical new energy device scam works: Rich Murray
> 2011.11.11
>
> from
> Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com reply-to vorte...@eskimo.com
>  to vorte...@eskimo.com
>  date Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM subject Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site
> up
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <
> aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Nice to see the web site is registered to Rossi but what the heck does
>> the validity of the E-Cat have to do with the software that was used to
>> create the web site or who the web site was created by or who it is
>> administered by?
>>
>
> I agree, very little.  But it's unlikely that a prosperous and
> sophisticated company would do it that way, that's all.
>
>
>> I suggest the sales and payment conditions has just totally taken the
>> wind out of the sails of all the scam / fraud group.
>>
>
> Oh, Gee!  Not at all.  A common form of scam is to take money somewhere
> near the start from secret investors who sign an NDA so they can't talk or
> write on public forums.  The NDA is usually extremely broad in scope and if
> someone hints at breaking it, all sorts of threats of law suits begin.
>
> Meanwhile, the perpetrators buy an ad or two or do a web page or other
> introduction, have news releases and press conferences, and announce a new
> company that promises all sorts of wonders.  They usually have some sort of
> photo op and maybe a carefully contrived demonstration that believers can
> sop up but which really proves nothing.   The next step is to announce that
> a lot of the proceeds will go to charity.  Blogs sprout up praising the
> device and fantasizing what will happen in the future when it is widely
> adopted.  Skeptics are scorned and insulted and eventually banned from
> enthusiast sites.Then, the scammer says they won't be taking investment
> money now.  Maybe in the future they'll go public but they're doing this
> "on their own".  The secret investors aren't mentioned and they can't say a
> peep due to their NDA.  They also don't want to jeopardize success and
> future profits.  Some are simply too embarrassed to speak.
>
> Customers are announced but somehow they're never produced.  Test are
> declined if they're too definitive.  Hey, they'd reveal too many trade
> secrets.  Patents?  "Sometimes it's no, sometimes it's yes, it just
> couldn't matter less" (from Gigi, 1958, IMDB).
>
> Along the way, more secret investors may be picked up.  The investment
> amount can get really large -- Steorn so far has been $21 million Euros.
> The money is spent or squirreled away.  It can go on for years with no
> product, no proper testing and no customers who can verify that the product
> is real.
>
> That's the quick version.  Is that what Rossi is?  In my mind, he fits the
> script but he's more daring about demos than most  -- but who knows?  The
> more time goes by between the customer announcement and some credible souls
> vouching for a bona fide sale and of course a proper test -- the longer it
> takes, the more likely it's a scam.  Nine months and counting now.
>
> You think people are too sophisticated to give money to scammers?  You
> must read different news articles than I do.
>
>
> Rich Murray
> rmfor...@gmail.com
> 505-819-7388
> rich.murray11  Skype audio, video
>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org